Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 16th Feb 2012 14:46 UTC
Mac OS X Well, this is a surprise. Several websites have a preview up of Apple's next Mac OS X release - it's called Mountain Lion, and continues the trend of bringing over functionality from iOS to Mac OS X. Lots of cool stuff in here we've all seen before on iPhones and iPads, including one very, very controversial feature: Gatekeeper. Starting with Mac OS X 10.8, Apple's desktop operating system will be restricted to Mac App Store and Apple-signed applications by default (with an opt-out switch), following in Windows 8's footsteps.
Thread beginning with comment 507517
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Well, I have a Fedora install right before my eyes, and I can download and install random RPMs from the nternet just fine.

I can also build source packages and install them manually if I really want to.

That's why Thom is talking about. Signed repositories are not bad in themselves, they only become a problem when users are solely able to install software from a single source without hassle.


I have a fedora install as well ... :|

I don't understand where the problem is coming from, developer X get Key Y and signs their applications with it ... users can install it ... I don't understand what the problem is.

I work in the software world with many crap bits of software and this lock-in in childs play compared to what I have to deal with ... I wish it was this easy to work around.

Edited 2012-02-16 20:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

TomF Member since:
2010-01-22

"Well, I have a Fedora install right before my eyes, and I can download and install random RPMs from the nternet just fine.

I can also build source packages and install them manually if I really want to.

That's why Thom is talking about. Signed repositories are not bad in themselves, they only become a problem when users are solely able to install software from a single source without hassle.


I have a fedora install as well ... :|

I don't understand where the problem is coming from, developer X get Key Y and signs their applications with it ... users can install it ... I don't understand what the problem is.

I work in the software world with many crap bits of software and this lock-in in childs play compared to what I have to deal with ... I wish it was this easy to work around.
"

and soon enough TPM chips will be mandatory and you won't get any modern hardware to install Fedora (me like!) on....

TomUK

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I have a fedora install as well ... :|

I don't understand where the problem is coming from, developer X get Key Y and signs their applications with it ... users can install it ... I don't understand what the problem is.

My problem essentially revolves around two elements :
-Where does key Y come from ? The developer himself (self-signing) or a third party ?
-If it is a third party, may it choose not to provide keys to the developer and/or to revoke existing keys ?

Again, I have no problem with OS manufacturers maintaining their own repository, signed by them, fully under their control, integrated in fresh OS installs, etc... But I think that independently distributed software has its place too. OS manufacturers may not favor it, but making it artificially difficult to install and/or use crosses the line.

Is it easier to understand this way ?

Edited 2012-02-16 21:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The key is free from Apple. I don't see the problem with Apple wanting to keep it secure.

Reply Parent Score: 3